Giving up Cubing for Lent

[Lance Taylor]

Again, a full-blown explanation isn't needed, but when you post a description of a cookie recipe, that's not enough. As I don't want to trouble you, could you least explain if you were talking about "small changes within a species" evolution or "goo to you" evolution? (Thanks Lofty!)

As for goo to you (G2Y), it does have to deal with whether or not there's a God. God's word teaches creationism (G => C). G2Y evolution teaches that creationism is wrong (G2Y => not C). Therefore, G2Y => not G.

Well here's the problem, and exactly what I was trying to say. There is no such thing as "goo to you" theory. It's garbage. This is the kind of crap that makes people not want to learn science in the first place. There is one, and ONLY one theory of evolution which is (still) accepted by (real) biologists. That is "the theory of evolution by natural selection". I don't know where "goo to you" came from, but it simply doesn't exist.

UNLESS you're talking about abiogenisis, which is NOT evolution. We don't know much about abiogenisis yet, but it's looking promising. I know that explaining this to someone who thinks "Goo to you" is a theory of evolution worth mentioning in the same sentence as natural selection is going to be kinda like explaining it to my four year old nephew, but I'lll try.

Abiogenisis basically is the idea that life is made up entirely of non-life "parts". Back a few hundred years, there was this thing called "Vital Force Theory" which people thought that there was a special unique sort of element exclusive to living things (call it a soul if you like). We weren't able to find many organic (carbon) compounds without a living source. Then this swell guy named Fredrich Wohler was able to make urea (a compound which before then was found only in urine) from ammonia (a compound which was easy to get from non-living sources). Boom, there goes vital force theory.

So back to abiogenisis. Scientists have been able to make 2 of the 4 nucleotides (Those DNA thingies) in a lab, basically out of mud. Life from non life looks a lot less impossible when you are able to do something like this. But then, abiogenisis is still a very young field, and there are many competing theories. "Goo to you" is NOT one of them. We have a long way to go before abiogenisis is solid enough to have a complete model of how everything happened, but it's becoming clearer and clearer that yes, it did happen.

That's one of the hardest questions to answer about "how are we here without god", so I recommend looking into it.

I'd just like to point out again the ignorance in "Well hai, there's two kindsa evolution... small changes, and goo 2 u! lol" If you're going to try and contribute anything, you have to know what you're talking about first. And it's stunningly, and embarassingly obvious that you have never been inside a biology classroom and awake at the same time.

[edit] Okay, maybe I'll take that back, because "small changes in a species" is a (I guess) reasonable summary of what natural selection is about. But I would love to know where you got the other one from. Maybe it's just a cute name for something else, so please try and explain what you're trying to get at with "goo to you".

 

[Ranzha]

So in a thread originally about religion... people are debating religions.

:fp What are you surprised? People love to debate religion and politics. Besides, there's tons of other threads about boring stuff if you can't handle it.

Wrong, sir.
The original question was "What are YOU giving up for lent?"
It's religiously based, but not a one-way ticket straight for a debate.
Keep things ON-TOPIC, is all.
Really, if you want to debate about religion, go here. Much more suitable.

Please, just stop. It gets quite old after awhile.
I used to read this thread thinking, "What are people giving up for Lent?"
Now, I read this thread thinking, "What is Lance going on about now?"

--Ranzha

 

[Lofty]

Haha wow, Lance you are missing so much...
"Goo to you" is merely humour and sarcasm not admittance that we know nothing about science. So don't think so highly of yourself and so lowly of us. You are missing the obvious.
Anyway, I've been awake a few times in a science class before, though I've been asleep a few times in them too, so I'll comment a bit. Being able to produce something in the lab is completely different from it happening in nature... If anything it would prove intelligent design by showing that a huge amount of intelligence must be put into setting up an experiment just right to get 2 of the 4 nucleotides created out of your mud mixture.
I've yet to really hear anything that accounts for the chirality of life's molecules...
I don't really see why people like to insist so heavily that abiogenesis is something completely separate from evolution except that they want to bracket off the part of life's origins that has the most holes so that they can still say that evolution is strong.
Without abiogenesis where is evolution left? With a deist god who started life and then left it to evolve for itself? Thats not a valid scientific hypothesis.
Edit:
I missed your edit. Yes, Goo to You is a cute sarcastic name poking fun at macro evolution. He's talking about the difference between micro and macro evolution. Most Christians believe the obvious scientific evidence that creatures to change and evolve in response to their surroundings but that those changes never result in the creation of a completely different kind of organism. Like a land mammal isn't going to evolve into a sea mammal but you can get different types of dogs, bacteria becoming immune to medicine and so on. This Microevolution is normally confined to species or the biblical word "kind" for different kinds of animals.

 

[Dene]

LMAO seriously this Lance guy is hilarious. Look at Mr. Scholar-I'm-so-smart-and-you're-all-stupid-but-don't-worry-I'm-here-to-educate-you.

Does he seriously not realise he is surrounded by nerds on these forums? Or is he just a really bad troll in disguise?

 

[Lofty]

LMAO seriously this Lance guy is hilarious. Look at Mr. Scholar-I'm-so-smart-and-you're-all-stupid-but-don't-worry-I'm-here-to-educate-you.

Does he seriously not realise he is surrounded by nerds on these forums? Or is he just a really bad troll in disguise?

I normally hate the people that just quote something and say +1 but in this case I have to do it.
+1

 

[Lance Taylor]

Nah, it just bothers me when I read something that pisses on the face of science. If you don't care to correct yourself, then I don't care to explain it to you; and you can go on living your life with a head full of wrong ideas.

mr-educated-smater-than-everyone-else-on-the-forum was trying to do you a favor. If you don't want to know about evolution, don't read my post; but don't tell me I can't explain it to those who are interested. Obviously people are interested, I'm not the first person to bring it up.

And just because you don't SEE how abiogenisis and evolution are different, doesn't mean they are. Who the hell are you? Nobody, at least not when it comes to biology. Please show your credentials before telling everyone that "Oh, well I don't see how it is so; so it must not be so." Evolution ONLY talks about the change in frequency of alleles (I always mis-spell that word), and how species, given enough time, can adapt a more suitable phenotype (YA, I KNO! BIG WORDS, RITE!?). Talking about where original life comes from is a completely different story. You can't just mash two theories together on a whim. Once we have a more complete understanding of abiogenisis, then MAYBE they will merge the two theories (like electricity and magnetism were merged into electromagnetism), but I doubt it will happen in our lifetimes, if ever.

anyway, if no one cares, then I'll stop posting about it; that is unless someone else says something which is completely wrong. I'm not going to read a rebuttal to my post which has lies in it, and ignore it. Be as religious as you want, but don't tell us that things we know happened didn't happen.

Oh, and by the way, those nucleotides I was talking about that we made from clay... we didn't do anything. Just reproduced the type of substrate that we think was around at the time of the first cells; and the nucleotides formed themselves with material that was already there. No intelligent intervention required.

Like I said, takes a lot more than a page to explain from first principles.

I'll drop it if you will.

Edit: I didn't see your edit. Land mammals DO evolve into sea mammals. Where do you think whales came from? Fish? Whales came from land mammals. The first mammals were already land animals.

anyway, I suggest a comprimise. Let's let this thread die, because obviously by responding to responses to my original post, I'm the bad guy all of a sudden. I'd be happy to go on all day like this, but not if it's just pissing people off.

You know why I've been on this forum for a year with only 3 posts? Because people hear my text in their head differently than I say it in my head. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm trying to explain something to you because it's interesting to me.

 

[Lofty]

Its not what you are saying about evolution that is making us respond this way. Its that you are clearly missing the fact that we do actually know some science and continue to assume that we know nothing even after Dene very nicely pointed it out to you.
Your attitude is terrible. The analogy thats immediately jumping into my head is racist white people back in the day who thought "Oh poor african slaves can't do anything right, as a superior white person I'm obligated to help them out". Only replace racist white people with arrogant scientists and african slaves with religious people.
In response to your Edit: I have no opinion on where sea mammals came from. But people who hold to the theory of only micro evolution in my post say they would have come from creation.
I'm done actually trying to talk about evolution with you.
We can drop it.
Edit:
Like I said, its not the content but your attitude. Its coming across like you think that we don't know anything and that you are superior to us. You should probably try to change that.

 

[Lance Taylor]

Its not what you are saying about evolution that is making us respond this way. Its that you are clearly missing the fact that we do actually know some science and continue to assume that we know nothing even after Dene very nicely pointed it out to you.
Your attitude is terrible. The analogy thats immediately jumping into my head is racist white people back in the day who thought "Oh poor african slaves can't do anything right, as a superior white person I'm obligated to help them out". Only replace racist white people with arrogant scientists and african slaves with religious people.
In response to your Edit: I have no opinion on where sea mammals came from. But in my post they would have come from creation.
I'm done actually trying to talk about evolution with you.
We can drop it.

Cool, thanks. Sorry if I sounded condescending, I didn't mean to.

 

[RyanO]

In the case of whales I believe it was actually the other way around. Land mammals evolved from sea mammals. anyway, I find it quite silly that some religous people like to keep ignoring observed scientific evidence when science and religion really aren't mutually exclusive. It makes it hard for people to take your other claims seriously when you discredit yourself with obvious foolishness.

 

[Dene]

The problem is that you are trying to explain things to us when you should be explaining it to 14 year olds. We aren't stupid. Phenotype isn't a long word. You are not smarter or more qualified than me. You will not do me any favours by dumbing down something which I already find tedious. I suggest you move along.

 

[Ranzha]

I never celebrated Lent, though both of my paternal uncles are Methodist ministers >_>.
What's weirder is that they're twins.

 

[Lofty]

I have never celebrated it before either. But I have decided to celebrate it this year. I have decided to stop cubing and to seriously limit my time on youtube and facebook. I can't completely give up facebook as I need it to correspond with my classmates.
It feels really weird when I get home from class and I only have my email to check... I'm so used to wasting all my time on youtube and facebook doing close to nothing. I'll have much more time to spend with God now.
Edit: Once again Dene has put into words what I was thinking. Thank You Dene.

 

[Johan444]

Wait, when you use "evolution", are you referring to the small changes in a species? Or are you referring to the "goo to dude" theory? <SARCASM>Not that anyone would ever try to jump from one to the other without clarification</SARCASM>

So let's think about how your "God exists and 'goo to dude' is correct" theory doesn't work. So when you say "God exists", what exactly are you saying? Some God exists, but we don't know exactly what he's like? I'm going to assume you're referring to the Christian God. Well, if you're taking a Christian perspective look at things, your basis is that the Bible is true.

OK, so let's look at the story of creation (Genesis 1). God created the world in 6 days. Well, let's put on our evolution hat and say that maybe those weren't 6 24-hour period, but days are to be interpreted as something longer (billions of years). From a Christian perspective, we won't argue it (not that it can't be argued, you'll just see that it doesn't matter if we are right or wrong on this).

So let's look at ordering from a Christian perspective:
Genesis 1:20 - God creates the animals in the sea and the birds of the air on day 5.
Genesis 1:24 - God creates creatures that move on the ground (livestock, wild animals, etc).

But that ordering doesn't work from an evolutionist perspective, since birds are land animals with wings. You don't jump right from sea creatures to birds. Therefore, you have a conflict.

Hadn't thought about all that, but I try not to if I can avoid it. It only gives Satan a little push in shaking my faith. (Yes, I'm a strong Christian.)

That quote pretty much sums up all christians view on ideas that speak against christianity.

"Good point, but I'm going to ignore it."

Where would the world be today if some people did not dare to question and criticize? Nowhere.

 

[Lance Taylor]

The problem is that you are trying to explain things to us when you should be explaining it to 14 year olds. We aren't stupid. Phenotype isn't a long word. You are not smarter or more qualified than me. You will not do me any favours by dumbing down something which I already find tedious. I suggest you move along.

Well I'm probably not smarter than you, but I'd like to know exactly what it is you do that makes you think a guy working on a biology degree doesn't know more about biology than you do. What arrogance.

You know this started as just me chipping in a little extra to all the little mistakes in the thread. I spent a ton of years as a catholic, and then I spent a ton of years as a biology student. Therefore, I think I know enough to correct little mistakes like "Hey Catholics aren't Christians". People blew up at ME. It was "bryan" who told me to explain evolution, so surprise... I began to explain evolution. I do assume that some people (but deffinitley NOT most people, even on a "nerd forum") know what evolution is. I explained it because I was asked to. I should have ended it at my original post. Like I said before, people, when reading text, always seem to assume I'm being a jerk. I'm just a dude waking up at his computer before I start my day. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm trying to pitch something extra into an interesting topic. Please, take it easy.

I won't post again, so take all the cheap-shots at my character that you want. This bickering is going to go on forever unless someone grows some balls and just drops it.

 

[Lofty]

That quote pretty much sums up all christians view on ideas that speak against christianity.

"Good point, but I'm going to ignore it."

Where would the world be today if some people did not dare to question and criticize? Nowhere.

Way to make sweeping generalizations lol... Of course all Christians are like that.

 

[Johan444]

That quote pretty much sums up all christians view on ideas that speak against christianity.

"Good point, but I'm going to ignore it."

Where would the world be today if some people did not dare to question and criticize? Nowhere.

Way to make sweeping generalizations lol... Of course all Christians are like that.

I was a christian for a little while when I was about 16 y.o and I got the impression (read: got told) that you could not question God nor the bible.

 

[Deleted member 2864]

That quote pretty much sums up all christians view on ideas that speak against christianity.

"Good point, but I'm going to ignore it."

Where would the world be today if some people did not dare to question and criticize? Nowhere.

This quote pretty much sums up your ignorant views about all Christians' ideas.

"Nice post, so I think I'll use yours to represent all Christians."

Where would the world be today if everybody made stereotypes and generalization? Nowhere.





At least some people know that one person doesn't represent a whole group. I think I can assume you're not Christian, so what gives you the right to judge what we Christians believe?

You sir, just made an inane post.

 

[Dene]

How do you know that I am not doing a biology degree? How do you know that I have not spent the past 6 years of my life dedicated to reading everything about evolution that I could possibly imagine?

I'll answer the questions for you.
No, I am not a biology major. I have sat through biology courses though, with someone who was taking them. I am however a psychology and philosophy major. Evolutionary theory plays a huge role in psychology, and evolutionary theory is deeply imbedded in philosophy. I see no reason why either of us would be more qualified to discuss the topic. However from what you have said so far in this thread, I have no confidence in your abilities. You have only given the must dumbed down, basic explanations. I am not asking for you to give a better explanation; please spare my eyes of the misery.

Secondly, of course I have not dedicated the past 6 years of my life to reading on evolutionary theory. I have however spent a decent chunk of that time on evolution.

 

[brunson]

Here's how we get to the focus on abiogenesis.

Way back in the day we didn't understand fire, so fire was magic and we came up with the story of Prometheus and the belief in gods. Then we understood fire, so that's not magic any more, but where does the wood come from? Clearly god created it, so there's the reason for a deity. Then we came up with evolution, so that appears to take God out of the equation and, as the scientific evidence of evolution becomes overwhelming, the deists must focus on that which we cannot currently explain, abiogenesis, to continue to support their beliefs. Don't miss the fact that if we'd collectively been happy with the fact that fire was magic no one would have been motivated to learn what it really was.

But here's the kicker for me: NONE of this science precludes the existence of a god. I don't know why the faithful rail against evolution as some kind of attempt to disprove their supernatural being, I have to ask them if evolution is simply too difficult to for their deity to invent. Why do they relegate their creator to mundane images of molding Adam from clay and creating Eve from his rib? Making him a tinkerer in a garage sticking flagellae on the ends of bacteria so they can get around? Why, when a god that could create the reality around us is so much more profound and amazing?

I know many religious scientists who have no problem reconciling their belief in both God and science, I just think their God is much more clever than the god of the fundamentalists. Their God created quantum mechanics, astrophysics, galaxies, starts, life, evolution, language, art and philosophy all in the instant of the Big Bang (or whatever means the universe was created).

But why do I even care? Because when we give up and say, "It's that way because God made it that way," we stop looking for answers to why things are, and that's what the deniers of science are pushing for. If there is a god, then he created these questions for us to answer. I think it would be an offense to any god if s/he went through all the trouble to pose the questions and we ignored them, just shrugging our shoulders and declaring, "Magic." If it was me, I'd be very disappointed in my followers.

 

[Johan444]

That quote pretty much sums up all christians view on ideas that speak against christianity.

"Good point, but I'm going to ignore it."

Where would the world be today if some people did not dare to question and criticize? Nowhere.

This quote pretty much sums up your ignorant views about all Christians' ideas.

"Nice post, so I think I'll use yours to represent all Christians."

Where would the world be today if everybody made stereotypes and generalization? Nowhere.





At least some people know that one person doesn't represent a whole group. I think I can assume you're not Christian, so what gives you the right to judge what we Christians believe?

You sir, just made an inane post.

You're right, I should've added "almost" or something silimliar.

However, I do have a really hard time coming up with a christian that have really, really tried to disprove his belifes and yet coming out of it all as a christian.

EDIT: As I said, I was once a christian, and when I finally did question my belifes in an honest way it was all suddenly very, very clear.